The U.S. Justice Department is at a crossroads this week as it weighs whether to seek new indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, following the dramatic dismissal of earlier cases against both high-profile figures. The saga, which has captivated legal and political observers alike, centers on procedural missteps, questions of political motivation, and the ticking clock of legal deadlines.
According to reporting from CNN, Reuters, and Politico, the Justice Department could present a fresh indictment against Comey to a grand jury as soon as this week. The urgency stems from the fallout of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who found that the initial indictments against both Comey and James were void because they were brought by Lindsey Halligan, an interim U.S. Attorney whose appointment did not meet constitutional or statutory requirements. Halligan, a Trump ally, was installed in Virginia’s Eastern District after her predecessor was ousted for raising concerns about the cases. She presented evidence to grand juries alone, with career prosecutors refusing to participate—a move that raised eyebrows both inside and outside the Justice Department.
Comey, who pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress related to his testimony five years ago, and James, who pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and lying to a financial institution over mortgage documents, have both characterized the prosecutions as vindictive—driven by President Donald Trump’s personal animus. Comey, in particular, has long been in Trump’s crosshairs for his role in investigating alleged ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, while James successfully sued Trump’s real estate business for fraud.
The cases were dismissed last week after Judge Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal law. In her decision, Currie wrote that Halligan "didn’t have the authority to be the Eastern District of Virginia’s U.S. Attorney because she hadn’t been confirmed by the Senate or sworn in by the district’s judges." As a result, all actions she took before the grand jury—including the presentation of evidence—were deemed invalid. This left the Justice Department with two options: appeal the ruling or attempt to re-indict the defendants using a properly authorized prosecutor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt initially vowed a swift appeal, but as of early December, the Justice Department had not filed any notice with the court. Under federal procedural rules, the department has 30 days from the dismissal to notify the court of an appeal, which means the clock runs out the week of Christmas. According to Politico, the delay may reflect internal debates about the best path forward, as the department grapples with both legal and political risks.
FBI Director Kash Patel hinted over the weekend that "multiple responses" could be forthcoming as soon as "right after Thanksgiving." He told Epoch Times, "We the FBI, and our partners at the DOJ, have numerous options to proceed, and we’re executing on all those options. So we’re not done." Patel’s comments underscore the sense of urgency—and uncertainty—swirling around the Justice Department’s next move.
For Comey, the legal hurdles are especially daunting. His lead defense counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, asserted last week that the judge’s decision to dismiss the case "indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment." The five-year statute of limitations on the charges expired on September 30, 2025, and Comey’s team is expected to maintain that any new charges would be time-barred. Judge Currie, in a footnote to her ruling, appeared to agree, noting that everything Halligan did before the grand jury was invalid, including the presentation of the indictment.
However, sources told CNN that the Justice Department believes it might still have a window to revive the case under a law that could extend the statute of limitations by several months—potentially pushing the deadline into spring 2026. This legal gray area is hotly debated among experts. Gene Rossi, a former senior federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, told Politico, "For Comey, there’s no hook. … For the Comey case, I think it’s gone." Rossi argued that if the original indictment was void, prosecutors cannot simply supersede it or benefit from an extension.
Letitia James’s situation is somewhat different. Her defense, led by attorney Abbe Lowell, was in the early stages of challenging the specifics of her indictment when the case was dismissed. Unlike Comey’s case, the statute of limitations does not appear to be an immediate barrier for James, whose charges relate to alleged mortgage fraud. Lowell, who recently won a similar challenge to another Trump-backed interim U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, has pledged to continue fighting what he calls "President Trump’s unlawful appointments of purported U.S. Attorneys wherever appropriate." A spokesperson for Lowell declined further comment on the next steps in James’s case.
Legal experts agree that the Justice Department can reindict both Comey and James, but only if a different, properly authorized prosecutor manages the process. John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, observed, "They can reindict. The question is who can do it. They’ll have to have a different person managing that indictment process." Day described the situation as "a procedural morass" and criticized the administration’s reluctance to proceed under normal order. "The uncertainty that all of these machinations have created is sort of alarming," he said.
Within the Justice Department, several strategies are reportedly under consideration. Officials could assign new prosecutors to present evidence to a grand jury, sidestepping concerns about Halligan’s involvement, or they could appeal Currie’s ruling while simultaneously pursuing new indictments. Each path carries risks—not least the possibility that a grand jury could refuse to indict, or that an appeals court could uphold the dismissals, further embarrassing the department and the Trump administration.
Political observers note that both Comey and James have been persistent targets of Trump’s ire, fueling allegations that the prosecutions are more about settling scores than upholding the law. Critics argue that the cases lack merit and amount to vindictive prosecutions, while supporters insist that no one, regardless of political stature, should be above the law.
As the holiday season approaches, the Justice Department faces a tight timeline and mounting pressure to clarify its intentions. Whether it chooses to reindict, appeal, or let the cases quietly fade, the outcome will have lasting implications for the rule of law, the independence of federal prosecutors, and the perception of justice in a deeply divided nation.
For now, all eyes are on the Justice Department as it weighs its next move—one that could reshape the legal and political landscape for months, if not years, to come.
